P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement in compensation quantified and awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned Tribunal') by its judgment and award dated 3rd of October, 2007. Learned Tribunal, by the award impugned, has determined total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,66,000/- under different heads but awarded its 50%, i.e., Rs.1,33,000/- with a definite finding that deceased-Rakesh Kumar was contributorily negligent for the cause of accident.
(2.) The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that on 5th of August, 2004 at about 08:30 A.M. when deceased-Rakesh Kumar was riding his motorcycle bearing No.RJ13-7M- 1115 from Narsinghpura to Sri Ganganagar, his motorcycle collided with a truck bearing No.HR-58-0671 at M.L. Gurudwara and as a result of accident suffered grave and serious injuries which led to death on the spot. The incident was reported to concerned police station, and thereupon, a case under Section 279 and 304A IPC was registered against the driver of aforesaid truck. The appellant-claimants, as parents of deceased-Rakesh Kumar, laid a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Act quantifying compensation to the tune of Rs.32,08,000/- under different heads. In the claim petition, besides owner and driver of the offending vehicle, insurer was also impleaded as non-applicant. For claiming compensation, it is, inter-alia, averred by the appellants that deceased-Rakesh Kumar was a bachelor of 19 years of age at the time of his death and prosecuting his studies besides carrying out agricultural activities. In terms of prevailing minimum wages, at the relevant point of time, his annual income was shown as Rs.25,000/-. Attributing rash and negligent driving to the driver of truck, appellant-claimants claimed compensation from driver and owner of the vehicle as well as the insurer.
(3.) The claim petition is contested by respondents. On behalf of respondent No.1 and 2, a joint reply to the claim petition is submitted refuting all the averments. The third respondent-insurer also submitted its reply to the claim petition. In the reply insurer specifically averred that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. A specific objection is incorporated in the reply that at the time of accident, driver of the truck was not having a valid driving licence, and therefore, the insured has violated the terms of insurance policy, as such, liability to pay compensation cannot be fasten on the insurer.;